Glass Message Board
Glass Identification - Post here for all ID requests => Glass => Topic started by: chilternhills on December 29, 2020, 09:40:03 PM
-
I bought for the museum what I presume is a patch stand, described as Art Nouveau, that was originally in the Paul Kettle Collection. The bowl measures 6.6 cm across. The rim is gilded, but quite worn. It stands 5 cm high. The foot is 4.5 cm across. The pontil mark has been pressed with something to give it a rippled texture. The cherries and leaves are enamelled and outlined in gold.
The Paul Kettle Collection was sold at Fieldings in their Centuries of Glass 2016 auction: https://issuu.com/jammdesign/docs/f111-069_listing (https://issuu.com/jammdesign/docs/f111-069_listing) but I cannot locate this particular item in the sale.
Can anyone help with the maker? Thanks.
Anton
-
It looks as though it may be a piece of enamelled glass by Hugo Masey for Webb Corbett. However, and apologies for sounding rude as it's not intentional, but your photographs are terrible. It's impossible to see the detail as they are 'whited out' against a weird background and the profile shape is impossible to see without a side on picture :-[
If you could upload normal photos against a white sheet of paper that haven't been adjusted then it might help to see the enamelling more clearly :)
Is there an applied raspberry prunt on the pontil? is that what you are describing. Again, it's not possible to see details on your photographs.
m
-
Also I'm open to correction but I can't think that something made in the 1920s or so would be a patch stand?
Can't suggest what it might have been used for though at that small, but it seems to have been a 'thing' at that time as I have lots of small Stevens and Williams pieces from their 'alabaster' range.
-
I thought patch stands mostly had flat tops, or tops with a ridge at right angles to the surface, rather than curved like a bowl. ???
I've been trying to compare this with a small thing i have which I suspect is a patch stand. The dimensions are the same, but the top is flattish although slightly conical - a dip towards the centre.
It has a sort of delicate notch cutting all around the underside of the rim and a round polished pontil scar.
On the subject of small and miniature things, we know Monart made miniatures for salespeople to take around, to show examples to potential customers.
-
Also I'm open to correction but I can't think that something made in the 1920s or so would be a patch stand?
I wondered about that too, but apparently patches have come in and out of fashion and were still used in the 20th century, by film actresses and such, see here: https://www.collectorsweekly.com/articles/sexy-face-stickers/ . One of the possible reasons for requiring a patch(es) was none too savoury either.
I thought patch stands mostly had flat tops, or tops with a ridge at right angles to the surface, rather than curved like a bowl. ???
I thought true patch stands from the Georgian period had completely flat tops - I assumed so that you could slide the fiddly little blighter off between finger and thumb.
Investing In Georgian Glass by Ward Lloyd says they are little shallow dishes, 1 to 4 or 5 inch diameter, on stems and feet, “...shallow saucer shape or more commonly absolutely flat with a shallow flange around the edge”. He says “...there use is rather obscure...they are of such common occurrence that it seems much more likely that they were mere dressing-table accessories, used to carry trinkets and cosmetics of all sorts”.
Maybe Anton’s was for cherries or sweets or cherry sweets?
-
I believe patches were originally invented to disguise smallpox scars. :)
The angle of the "dip" in my flat surface is about 15 degrees. It would be really easy to slide a small patch to the edge, while the dip would perhaps help to keep it a little more securely on the surface.
But I would think Anton's is more for sweetmeats or cherries.
This is all a very new area for me - this old stuff. :o
-
Thanks for all your thoughts so far. I didn't really know what to call this teenie weenie thingy! It seems too small to be used for much else than for patches, but I admit having cherries in the bowl doesn't fit that purpose. You would be hard pressed to get even a couple of cherries in the bowl or more than a single sweet. Sorry about the photos. I did my best. I will have another go.
-
mm, maybe a genuine miniature item then used as Sue mentioned for taking round and selling the design?
Can you try with photos taken against a white background in daylight only no artificial light?
That way we can see the quality and type of the enamel etc. I feel fairly certain it looks as though it's a Hugo Masey enamelling.
-
Thanks for that. I wonder if it was for cherry liqueur? But you would need a steady hand to drink from it! I am not so sure about a miniature product sample. Why bother when a customer would want to see the proper size?
-
Perhaps because they were touting them around cased in a box/suitcase,to show the various examples of the colours/shapes and also in your case, the shape and enamelling and design? And to carry around full sized items may have been hefty and precarious?
I suppose they might have been shown as examples along with a catalogue in some cases?
-
It was for ease of carrying and transport that Monart made the miniatures. Not everybody could just get a car out and jump into it in the '30s.
Feet, bicycles and horse drawn carts were more the norm.
I could fit three cherries on my little "dipped" surface thing. I've got it out and beside me so I know what size we're talking about. ;D
-
Better pictures were requested. I hope these are suitable.
Anton
-
I think they just need to be in focus against a normal white background with daylight to be honest :-[ I am wearing my glasses so it's not me :)
Do the black background pics show an engraved all over pattern on the glass?
The other Hugo Maisey Webb Corbett enamelled pieces I've found seem to have a gilded rim and foot.
-
It is hard to get everything perfectly in focus on a curved bowl. A phone camera doesn't do depth of field very well. Sorry, but this is the best I can do. The pattern is just an artifact of the background and is not on the glass. There are remnants of a gilded rim. The foot has no gilding.
-
ok, just had a look in the book and there isn't a direct match.
The thickness of the foot and no gilding does not appear to be the same as other Webb Corbett Hugo Masey pieces to me (well the ones in the book and online) as they appear to have a finer foot and gilded finish around the foot (one piece does not have a gilded rim). However, my gut says that's where I'd be looking as the enamelling does remind me of Hugo Masey enamelling.
The book has lots of Stuart enamelled pieces but also says 'All Stuart enamelled glass is marked with the Stuart name.'. Source Charles Hajdamach 20th Century British Glass page 118 Plate 230
-
Thanks for your comments. Re: the finer foot in other examples. Remember this glass is a miniature. Proportionately the foot would need to be thicker, otherwise it could be too thin and fragile. I too have looked around the Internet and found similar Hugo Masey enamelled stemware, including with cherries, but nothing exactly the same.
-
yes probably agree the thickness of the foot may depend on how small the piece is. And actually I have S&W small pieces that do differ in thickness of foot, whether because different glassblower or maybe different era, or just .. y'know ... because.
Here is a piece from Keith by Hugo Masey. Does yours look as though it might have had an enamelled ring around the top of the foot? I though it might have and had worn off from one of your photos, so this piece caught my eye (unfortunately a dark photo but maybe Keith could do another against a white background in daylight :) ):
http://www.glassmessages.com/index.php/topic,56428.msg319887.html#msg319887
I like the enamelling technique and resultant effect more on yours than on any of the Stuart pieces. It has a transparency and 3d effect that's really pretty.
Maybe because it's so small and enlarged in pics perhaps. But it's really lovely.
-
I have to correct myself concerning gilding on the foot. There is, in fact, very faint remnants of gilding on the upper side, just at the edge of the foot. It appears as two very thin lines of gilding, but might have started out as a thicker, single band of gilding that has worn away. In the correct light I can see the glint of gold. There is no enamelling on the foot I can detect.
-
Actually, if you look carefully at my second 'improved' picture above, the two thin lines of gilding can be seen.
-
yes that's what I thought I could see in your pics.